Lovesusti
The Worst Film Ever
GrimPrecise
I'll tell you why so serious
Claysaba
Excellent, Without a doubt!!
karen-loethen
Unlike other reviewers, I saw this movie in the 80s when it first came out having never seen it on stage first. I was mesmerized! I loved it then and I love it now. As a young person it was my first introduction to the New York Theater scene...now I can see the limitations of the film, but the bones of the movie are perfect. The casting is amazing. Michael Douglas is gorgeous and perfect at Zach; other reviewers don't care for him in the role but I love him. Alyson Reed is luminous and wonderful on the boards. I couldn't choose a favorite character if I tried because each character is well-drawn. YES, I prefer the stage version. But I'm not a musical SNOB...I love the film too. I think it's worth a watch if only for the excellent dance. Don't compare, don't dis, just ENJOY.
preppy-3
Musical follows the dreams and ambitions of a group of men and women auditioning for a Broadway musical. It's all overseen by Zach (Michael Douglas) the director of the musical.The play opened in the mid 1970s on Broadway and it was an immediate hit. It broke new ground in how musicals were staged, dealt with subject matter that was still pretty taboo (being gay) and had pretty frank dialogue and situations. It also had a hit song--"What I Did for Love". Naturally the Hollywood version managed to trash it thoroughly. They tried to "improve" it and ended up insulting fans of the show and trivializing the musical completely. For starters the people they picked to play the line were--at best--mediocre dancers and singers. I saw the show multiple times on stage. ANY of those productions had better singers and dancers. None of them were particularly good actors either. The number "I Can Do That" was badly sung, danced and staged. Also "What I Did for Love" (which was about their love for dancing and signing) was turned into just a love song! Naturally they also added new songs which were boring and added nothing to the plot. One of the few bright spots was Douglas who was pretty good in his role. Also the finale which REALLY worked on a big movie screen was great but it was way too little and way too late. And who the hell thought Sir Richard Attenborough was the perfect choice for a director? The man has made some great films but never did a musical and (pretty obviously) didn't have a clue on how to stage or shoot the songs and dances. The direction here was all over the place.If you've never seen this on stage you might like this. However if you have you'll probably hate this. A 1 all the way. Try to see it on stage.
Gordon-11
This film chronicles the gruelling audition process for a major Broadway play."A Chorus Line" starts off with an impressive, highly choreographed and impressively synchronised dance performance, but unfortunately the good points end there. The rest of the film features individual auditioning members trying to show off their personalities, and sometimes they really show off so much that it becomes annoying. Who thought that "Year of the Chicken" joke is funny? It is not funny, it is just plain annoying.What evokes more negative feelings is Michael Douglas' character, called Zach. He spends most of the time shouting at people, especially at Cassie. And when he makes people dance, half the time he doesn't even bother watching the dance. The jolly atmosphere is wholly destroyed by Zach.I have not seen the Broadway musical, but as one of the longest running Broadway shows, it has got to be better than "A Chorus Line" the film.
writers_reign
Occasionally, it would appear, I actually do see the same movie as the majority of other posters. This is a case in point. Like many of those who have posted here I saw the stage version albeit in London rather than Broadway and it was light years ahead of this strangely insipid film. Like other posters I question the wisdom of engaging Richard Attenborough to direct a dynamic Broadway musical or engage Michael Douglas to personify what in the stage version was a disembodied voice. In the theatre the finale, 'One', staged if full costume, was a tour de force, because although we had seen fragments of rehearsal it still made an impact like a pile-driver whereas here it is merely a competent, well-drilled routine. There is perhaps some merit or at least interest in a movie musical in which the bulk of the score is performed almost in passing with a couple of solos just for show but overall we're talking major disappointment.
